On 19 Mar 2009, at 20:10, Édouard Gilbert wrote:
> […]
> While we’re discussing language grammars, I was wondering if we
> could hope some lexer-like capabilities in TM2.0 — I to have regexes
> everywhere in my grammars, they make anything barely readable.
The feature set is sort of closed for 2.0, but there should be 2.1
etc. so; what exactly do you mean/propose? I realize that idealized
EBNF looks nicer than a TM grammar, but in practice it is not (IMHO).
> And, on quite but not that much unrelated matters, what would be the
> better way to match something like:
>> a
> > I can apply set of rule A
> b
> > I can apply set of rule B
> c
>> My current is […]
I am confused as to the size of your scopes.
Is each letter starting a new scope, so b is nested inside a, and c is
nested inside b (nested inside a)?